On more than one occasion I have read remarks by people claiming Marx made a major error when he predicted that the socialist revolutions throughout the world would occur in the most advanced nations first.  This comment exposes a tremendous erroneous conception of what Marx did and did not say in this regard that definitely needs some illumination, especially in light of current events.
         To begin with, one must realize that Marx and Engels were not in the business of giving a decade by decade account of how nations would develop throughout history.  Instead, they were stepping back and looking at the big picture, the evolution of the world as a whole.  And what they saw was that ultimately the proletariat would overthrow the bourgeoisie and establish socialism throughout the land.  What has happened since their writing, and has led many to wrong analyses, is that revolutions have occurred throughout the world that resulted in the establishment of socialism but they were carried out not by the world’s proletariat but by its peasantry.  In 1917 in Russia, in China, in Albania, in Vietnam, in Cuba it was the peasantry that was the primary force for liberation.  Marxist-Leninists, mainly drawn from the proletariat and working in unison with the proletariat, led an alliance between the proletariat and the peasantry to, and through, a successful socialist revolution.  But the key factor to note is that the peasantry rather than the proletariat furnished the bulk of the manpower and did most of the fighting.  The leadership of the Marxist-Leninist party came primarily from the proletariat and the proletariat provided a significant amount of the fighting personnel but these revolutions were basically dependent upon the peasantry.  Over 80% of the Russian people were peasants in 1917 and it would have been absurd to think that a socialist revolution could have succeeded that was not based primarily on the peasantry.  The percentage of peasants in China was even higher.  That is why Lenin always referred to an alliance of the proletariat and the peasantry.  Revolutions are carried out by those at the bottom of the ladder, those who have the most to gain and the least to lose, and nowhere was this more applicable to the peasantry than in Russia 1917, China 1948, Albania 1945, Vietnam 1945, etc.
         But because these revolutions have since either succumbed to capitalism or retreated dramatically in many respects, many observers have erroneously concluded that Marx was wrong and socialism has failed.  Few beliefs could be further from the truth and those propounding such inaccuracies are only revealing their poor comprehension of Marxism-Leninism and the tide of history.  They don’t fully comprehend what Marx and Engels were saying and their politico-economic myopia has generated some fallacious conclusions.  What did Marx actually say in this regard?  First we need to note what he did not say.  Did he say the proletariat is the only revolutionary class? NO.  Did he say the proletariat is the most revolutionary class at all times?  NO.  Did he say the proletariat would be the first class to lead a revolt after he spoke?  NO.  Well, then, what did he say.  Essentially he said that if you step back and look at the big picture, if you look at history in its totality, the proletariat is the only class that is ultimately destined to overthrow capitalism by the very evolution of economic (read Material) conditions.  In other words, when all is said and done, there is one class, and one class only, that is destined to overthrow the last of the exploitive systems.  But does that mean peasant revolutions led by realistic Marxists working in concert with a developing proletariat can not achieve successful revolutions in the meantime.  Of course not, and that is exactly what happened.  But just because these revolutions succeeded but were later overturned in many cases does not BY ANY MEANS refute the basic truth of what Marx claimed.  In an odd sense, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Hoxha etc. “jumped the gun.”  They relied on those at the bottom of the world’s economic ladder to institute socialism, which is perfectly sensible, but they did not rely primarily on the proletariat to provide the millions in manpower that were needed.  It’s as if they could not wait knowing full well the promise that lay ahead.  And I would have been as impatient for a sane society as they had I been in their situation.
         So what is the unavoidable conclusion to be derived from this assessment?  The unmistakable conclusion is that the fundamental thesis of Marx has not even “kicked in” yet.  That is yet to come.  To millions I say.  Good grief.  Have patience!  Stick around.  “The best is yet to come.”  As odd as it may seem, what occurred throughout the 20th century was mere prologue to what is headed our way, a mere harbinger of events yet to materialize.  One has to only look at today’s world to see that key factors are beginning to jell for the grand finale.  And few components are as important as the fact that no class in the world is growing more rapidly than the proletariat.  From defeated small farmers, small businessmen, small shop keepers (the petty bourgeois) and semi-proletarians to peasants throughout the world being drawn to  the world’s cities for work at any price the proletariat grows by leaps and bounds.  In country after country its numbers multiply and continue to grow more rapidly than those of the peasantry as the capitalists expand into every nook and cranny on the surface of the globe where a buck can be made.  The proletariat is quickly increasing in numbers while all other dispossessed classes are swiftly diminishing by comparison.
         I mention all of this because of recent events that appear to be inaugurating the beginning of the end for this entire process.  For the first time in so far as I am aware a sizable portion of the proletariat of much of Europe rebelled simultaneously, not in a national, but in an international strike against a common foe--some international oligopolies--who controlled the dissemination of a very vital commodity, oil.  This could very well be the initiation of the final stage because one can only imagine what would happen were this to involve many critical commodities--electricity, food, housing, many of the most affluent capitalist nations, and a protracted period of time.  As Lenin said, “in every strike lurks the hydra of revolution.”  Time will tell, of course, but the seriousness of what has been occurring in the last week or so in Europe is far more important than many seem to realize.  After all, we are not dealing with the 90% of the exploited nations of the world.  We are dealing with  many of the 10% of the capitalist states that are the richest, the exploiting states themselves.  Once they start to come unglued all bets are off because they and their proletariats are the backbone of world capitalism itself.  A simultaneous upheaval among their proletariats on an international scale jeopardizes the entire structure of world exploitation, especially if coordination and a Marxist-Leninist leadership becomes involved.